Re: IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998 - 18:26:00 EDT


Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> At 12:00 PM -0700 7/13/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> >F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have been
> >performing a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Paul
> >and Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle this
> >issue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON in
> >Luke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI is
> >modified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of hUPHRETHS.
> >
> >Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that then
> >semantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitive
> >modifier of X, simply by finding pattern XY in a relevant text. This is a
> >common fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding the
> >pattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.
> >
> >In Acts 13:5 hUPHRETHN cannot be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just because
> >this pattern exists in Luke 1:2.
>
> I don't understand what the basis of your negative argument is. Has
> somebody actually suggested that hUPHRETHS in Acts 13:5 means the same as
> hUPHERTHS TOU LOGOU in Luke 1:2? Surely that's not what Bruce is
> suggesting, is it? It strikes me as a strange suggestion for anyone to
> make. So: Mark NOT = Gunga Din?
>

Carl,

Burce (in a foot note on page 263 of Acts NICNT 1954) comes at this in a very
indirect manner. No, he does not make the direct equation that I have made
above, but I think he is implying the equation. He is citing Luke 1:2 as
support for the notion that John Mark was acting in similar capacity to Paul
and Barnabas in the Acts 13:5 context, i.e., John Mark was a hUPHERTHS TOU
LOGOU. Bruce is very tentative about this, he is discussing the views of
other scholars. What I am contesting is the use of Luke 1:2 as evidence in a
chain of reasoning which implies the equation I have stated above, even if it
does not make the equation outright. I think that the argument in this
footnote, when is reduced to it's elements both stated and unstated, includes
the idea that hUPHRETHN in Acts 13:5 can be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU in
Luke 1:2. By making this implicit step in the argument explicit, I am exposing
a common error in argumentation about lexical semantics. Bruce is probably not
guilty of this error, but the error is there buried in the logic of the
sources he is quoting.

Of course I would never get a guilty verdict in court using this kind of
evidence, unless the defendant was a white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual male
orthodox Protestant. That sort of defendant is guilty by definition, but alas
this is off topic, is it not?

Clay

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:53 EDT